perspective_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only, has no side effects, and returns specific fields (id, name, kind, requiresPro), providing complete transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and an example call. It is front-loaded with the primary action and effectively conveys all necessary information with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields and provides usage context. The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description fully addresses its behavior and output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to add parameter information since there are none.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists all perspectives in OmniFocus, specifies included types (built-in and custom), and explicitly distinguishes it from perspective_evaluate, making the purpose very specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (for evaluation, prefer perspective_evaluate) and notes that it is safe to call repeatedly with no side effects, offering clear usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.